HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 10368 of 2024 Court No. - 83 HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 is also present. 2. Learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 have filed counter affidavits today and the same are taken on record. Learned counsel for the appellant has also filed supplementary affidavit today, which is also taken on record. 3. This criminal appeal has been filed by the learned counsel for the appellant under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging the impugned order dated 02.09.2024 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Deoria, in Second Bail Application No. 1489 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 335 of 2023, under Sections 120-B, 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station Rampur Karkhana, District Deoria. 4. According to the prosecution case, on 08.09.2023 at about 7:00 p.m., the son of the complainant was returning home from Mehra Gorakhpur Road. At a distance of about 100 steps from his house, the accused Bholu @ Pankaj, Sunny, Chintu Yadav, Virendra Yadav, Neeraj Yadav, Indrajeet, and Makhdoo Yadav, all armed with lathis, rods, and sticks, stopped him, hurled caste-related abuses, and brutally assaulted him, causing severe injuries, due to which he died on the spot. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the FIR was lodged on 09.09.2023 at 11:00 a.m., nearly 16 hours after the incident, without any plausible explanation for the delay. It is further submitted that no specific role has been assigned to the present appellant except the general role through he was not present on the spot at the time of alleged incident. It is further pointed out that P.W.-1 (the complainant), in his cross- examination, contradicted his own version in the FIR regarding the time of occurrence. He admitted that between 9:30–10:00 p.m., he had taken his injured son to Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Bhavesh Singh Jadaun, Satya Dheer Singh Jadaun Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Pawan Kumar Rao Bholu Alias Pankaj .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) District Hospital, Deoria, and returned home around 10:00 p.m. He also admitted that about 150 police personnel had reached the spot during the night, yet the FIR was not lodged promptly. It is further submitted that there are 20 prosecution witnesses, out of which only two have been examined so far, and there is no likelihood of early conclusion of trial. There is no direct or indirect evidence against the appellant. The appellant has been in custody since 15.09.2023. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, as well as the learned A.G.A., opposed the prayer for bail but could not effectively dispute the factual submissions made on behalf of the appellant. 7. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the record including the impugned order. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the accusation, the material on record, the complicity of the accused, the severity of punishment, and the fact that the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The court below erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from illegality and infirmity and is liable to be set aside. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 02.09.2024 rejecting the bail application of the appellant is hereby set aside. 10. Let the appellant Bholu @ Pankaj, involved in the aforesaid case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es). (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence. (v) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. (vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. CRLA No. 10368 of 2024 2 (viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before the competent Court. 12. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order. September 16, 2025 RavindraKSingh CRLA No. 10368 of 2024 3 (Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad